On 1/23/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
A legitimate privacy device may function very much like DRM. Consider
classified environments, where you really don't want people to copy
things around willy-nilly. Making it hard to copy information won't
eliminate leaks, but it will
Osamu Aoki wrote:
Thanks for saving lost soul.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:58:28AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
This clause is universally interpreted to mean that the permission is
granted and you don't need to pay a fee to get that permission; in other
words, for any purpose and without fee is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't agree that this clause is DFSG-free.
It says that the name of an augmented font cannot *include* the term
STIX or *any similar* term.
That is significantly broader than what is allowed by DFGS#4, which
states (in part):
Your understanding of the DFSG is well
On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breach of contractual
covenant to forbear from the exercise of the
On 1/23/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
the GPL as a contract (and in this case as a breach of
On 1/23/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/23/06, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/13/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not really. I expect that any court will ignore Moglen's drivel
like the Judge Saris did in the MySQL case and will interpret
[ Bcc'ed to -project, -devel and -legal, any further discussion and/or
seconds on -vote, please. ]
After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.
--8--
The Debian Project asserts that
Works licensed under
On 1/23/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf
With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MySQL has not
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or
irreparable harm. Affidavits
Plonk.
regards,
alexander.
Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
[ Bcc'ed to -project, -devel and -legal, any further discussion and/or
seconds on -vote, please. ]
After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.
--8--
The Debian Project asserts
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:52:56AM +0400, olive wrote:
Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
Works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as
published by the Free Software Foundation (GNU FDL), are free in
accordance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), if and only
if
11 matches
Mail list logo
